Toyota Prius Under Fire For Patent Infringement 504
tekiegreg writes "According to Auto Service World, Toyota (and possibly other hybrid companies) are guilty of violating a patent with their Prius hybrid Systems. The patent in particular looks like it covers most of how the drive-train and even the braking system of a Toyota Prius functions. The implications of which are big if there is no deal or settlement made (such as ceasing of hybrid vehicles in the United States)."
Easy Solution. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:3, Funny)
Implement Flintstones braking tech now!
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:3, Informative)
Without the breaking system advantage, your hybrid car won't get any significant fuel efficiency boost.
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:3, Informative)
. .
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:5, Informative)
When you consider the emmisions cost of the entire system, production, energy production/transmission and disposal, the current commercially available hybrids are unmitigated environmental disasters hidden by ignorance, smoke and mirrors.
How to get 10 mpg better milage while reducing emmisions from a standard, gasoline burning Accord:
Regear and retune the engine to give maximum efficiency while producing the same level of performance as a Prius.
Notice in the above post that the driver achieved his milage in the Prius through modification of his driving technique.
As a demonstration I once achieved 40 mpg from an completely box stock, 1976 Ford Fiesta on the open road simply by driving with my mind on efficiency rather than performance. If I had modified the car to run in this manner innately it would have reduced its emmisions greatly as well.
The Prius owner quoted above is an efficiency minded fellow who drove his car with his mind on driving as efficiently as possible. It is a biased anecdote.
Gas powered CRX drivers reported getting 60 mpg with low overall emmisions. The cars were simply tuned for economy rather than performance as well as being smaller and lighter than a Prius. It did not sell well, because it lacked performance. Buyers of this car, and the buyers of the Prius, are innately people who are willing to sacrifice performance for efficiency and the purported benefits of the hybrid system come mostly from this sacrifice of performance, not from the hybrid system.
Give me a blank sheet of paper and I will design you a vehicle that can sustain 30 mph on only 60 watts of power, is fueled by pizza and exhausts relatively small amounts of CO2 balanced by the carbon cycle.
But you would not likely buy such a vehicle because it would not make you happy.
The current line of hybrids are designed to make people happy by giving them the impression that they are achieving reduced fuel use and emmissions over some other system.
As an engineer I love electrics and hybrids and have been involved with them since the mid 70s. They are elegant. I appreciate that elegance.
But the claims surrounding the current crop of hybrids are faith based, not engineering based.
And people will defend their faith no matter.
KFG
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:4, Informative)
Where cars themselves are especially stupid, and if you look at the packaging of a Prius it is obviously not a city commuter model but is equiped as a long range family hauler, because that is what people expect and will put their money down for.
. .
You are efficiency and environmentally concious and you drive ten minutes to work, including two to three minutes stopped at lights and a train crossing?
I would be ashamed of such an admission and all of your Prius, used as such, represents nothing but fuel waste in the first place.
the Prius gasoline engine TURNS OFF. So typically, I spend 2 to 3 minutes of my average 10 minute drive not poluting at all.
Are you aware of the fuel and emmissions costs of simply turning on a gasoline engine? They can exceed those of an engine idling for a minute or two. You would gain more benefit from this is you commuted on the Long Island Expressway, not in your short commute.
Also, a very simple engineering fact is that the amount of polution released in the atmosphere is directly related to the amount of fuel that is combusted.
No, this is intuitively obvious, but it is a simple engineering fact, that is to say empirical, that it is not always true, because a gasoline burning engine does not operate with a flat burning efficiency curve.
. .
Which energy was produced by the elves that live under my bed?
Thus the Prius will be expelling less waste (pollution) than the other vehicle.
From its tailpipe. This is not at all the same thing as saying that its use expells less pollution. You have fallen prey to the smoke and mirrors. You are expelling that added pollution into my backyard instead of yours. I don't necessarily appreciate your treating me in such a fashion.
Even if that difference is less than 1%, it's still better than nothing.
Have you ever driven a conventional gas engineed car designed and tuned to your particular commute and measured it's fuel efficiency and emmissions against the Prius?
You are, I'm afraid, one of these people who see certain gross functions of the vehicle and translate that into a feeling that you are coming out ahead, without actually knowing that you are.
Your use is faith based.
You can crunch all the numbers you want on emmisions and functioning of the Prius system. .
Q.E.D.
KFG
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:4, Interesting)
I kinda suspect a bit of prior art somewhere.
That's just it though... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Prius is pretty much unheard-of in the UK and EU. There are a few hybrids about, but I've seen *one* Honda Insight in the past 12 months. No-o
Re:Easy Solution. (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that my peak torque is at 2000 RPMs.
BTW, I've only got 52 hp
Also, where I live, the speed limit is only 65 MPH.
And, my car is fun. It's a different kind of fun, though - not "how fast can I go", or "how fast can I get my 0-60 or 1/4 mile times" - it's "what kind of MPG numbers can I get". Oh, and "how much smoke can I put in the windshield of the guy who's 1" away from my
/tin hat (Score:5, Funny)
Re:/tin hat (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm gonna go research a Mountain Dew...
Re:/tin hat (Score:2)
If that were true, wouldn't these technologies come to market once the patents expire?
Re:/tin hat (Score:2)
LOL, silly rabiit! Patents, copyrights, and trademarks never expire anymore.
-Eric
Re:/tin hat (Score:2)
Re:/tin hat (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, after 20 years, and then maybe a continuation. 2 years is enough to completely stifle innovation. 20? PCs were barely around 20 years ago and look at the world today. Imagine someone buying and hording the patent to a Personal Computer (which could happen in today's world.) Is that 20 years enough to kill innovation? Um, yeah.
Re:/tin hat (Score:3, Insightful)
No, when you get close to the 20 year mark, you just patent some other aspect of your invention--extending the patent another 20 years. Repeat as needed.
-Eric
Re:/tin hat (Score:2)
Notice all the Nutrasweet bashing going on among health gurus over the last couple of years. It was the perfect sweetener, now it causes everything from headaches to severe thunderstorms.
Why? Because the patent ran out on aspertame. They want you to buy Splenda(TM) sucralose now, and nobody has much of a profit motive to counter the anti-aspertame FUD, because Equal no longer holds an exclusive patent on it.
Re:/tin hat (Score:4, Informative)
That bashing's been going on since soon after the product hit the market [sweetpoison.com]. I think the patent expiring is why you're hearing more about it because there isn't anyone to "stifle" the truth anymore. The [mercola.com] headaches [mercola.com]are actually caused by brain lesions [metroactive.com]. But, those aren't the worst part, the blindness [ethicalinvesting.com]is what really gets you. (For the tin hatters out there [sumeria.net])
Re:/tin hat (Score:5, Interesting)
Pharmaceutical companies do this sort of thing all the time.
Re:/tin hat (Score:4, Informative)
The standard Pharmaceutical company trick is shortly before the patent expires, they introduce a new version with a trivial (but newly patented) "improvement". Aggressive marketing tries to get all their current customers switched to the new drug. When the patent expires, other companies can make generic versions of the original drug, and these may for all practical purposes be just as good at treating whatever it is, but pharmacists can't make the substitution for the new one without a new prescription.
The other trick is to find new uses for current drugs, and patent those new uses, which gets weird in that eventually generic companies can make the exact same drug, but not market it for the new purpose.
Both of these seem to me like side effects of applying patent law, which works reasonably well for things like mechanical engineering, to other realms.
Re:/tin hat (Score:3, Informative)
And I don't know what nut(s) modded you "insightful". The only "evidence" supporting such a crazy claim is a bunch of urban legends. Name one technology that OPEC "bought up" and kept secret. Ah, that's right. It's being kept secret! Complete absence of evidence is the sureset sign the conspiracy is wor
Don't laugh! (Score:5, Informative)
Oil company conspiracy? You decide...
Easy way around that: switch to lithium (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't laugh! (Score:3, Informative)
I first heard about ECD in this transcript [pbs.org] of a Scientific American Frontiers episode. Two segments on them, one talks about storing hydrogen as a solid (in alloy hydrides) and the second talks about their solar panel tech. Sort of ironic to see them pop up in this thread...
Re:Don't laugh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Electricity is often about 10 cents/KWh. A gallon of gasoline holds about 34 KWh, so at $2.50/gal that's 7.3 cents/KWh.
The deal is that most of the thermodynamic losses involved in creating electric power happen before you pay for it. You might get 80% of the electrical power you pay for delivered to your tires after battery and motor losses. With gasoline, your engine is lucky to extract only 25% of the fuel's energy as useful work. That would make your fuel costs for a gasoline powered car at least twice as expensive than an electrically powered one for the same amount of work done.
Re:Don't laugh! (Score:3, Informative)
The Efficiency Advantage of EVs and Power Plants
EVs recharging from fossil-fueled power plants such as coal and oil have unique
efficiency advantages over ICE vehicles. As a system, EVs and power plants are twice as
efficient as ICE vehicles and the system that refines gasoline. See Table 4. Although there
are losses associated with generating electricity from fossil-based fuels, EVs are
significantly more effici
Re:Don't laugh! (Score:3, Informative)
KFG
More likely American auto manufacturers (Score:3, Insightful)
-Eric
Diagram (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Diagram (Score:3, Informative)
Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I think reclaiming breaking energy with an electric motor was thought of, and used much earlier then that.
Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:5, Informative)
> energy with an electric motor was thought of,
> and used much earlier then that.
Around 1870 in fact.
sPh
Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:5, Informative)
I know I saw Telma [telmausa.com] retarders on buses, long before 1990. They work on the same principle.
Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:2)
Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:2, Interesting)
A quick search on Google resulted in the following article from Trains magazine:
http://www.trains.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000
They bascially state that modern Dynamic Braking, where the locomotive's traction motors are set as a generator, slows the train. The resulting electrical current is simply disposed of as heat via banks of resistors.
However, the article ment
Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:5, Informative)
[Their] patent is pretty complete, but only filed in 1990.
Unfortunately, I think reclaiming [braking] energy with an electric motor was thought of, and used much earlier [than] that.
I seem to recall an article that was published in the late 1980s in Popular Science profiling a prototype hybrid car that was called the Uniq. It had regenerative braking.
Rail locomotives have had "Dynamic braking" for decades, in which energy is reclaimed from the wheels, but it is subsequently burned off in a huge resistor, but it is at least half of the formula.
So that takes regenerative braking itself off the table as far as prior art. That leaves the combiner gearbox.
The Uniq used no combiner gearbox, and neither do Honda's hybrids. Toyota has done a better job at marketing their hybrid drive, but Hondas are actually getting better MPG without the combiner gearbox (though a pure electric mode is not possible).
The bottom line is: There is some prior art; it is probably not enough to help Toyota with their immediate problem, but not all hybrids are affected.
Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:3, Interesting)
Regenerative braking is a red herring. What's special about Toyota's HSD on Prius is the drivetrain, and that's exactly what they're talking about in the patent.
The caveat - the patent was filed in 1991, don't patents expire after 14 years?
Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete (Score:5, Informative)
Under the US Patent System, it counts as prior art if it was published by "others" (this means any person or group of persons different from the applicant) before the invention of the device. This is called 102(a) and they can swear behind this using the whole first to invent idea. Initially, items are considered "invented" when tey are filed. It also counts if a publication is made or it is in "use" (in the terms of in the public already) by anyone (including applicants) more then 1 year prior to the earliest US filing date. This is a 102(b) and a so-called "statutory bar". There is no way to swear behind these kinds of references. The final one that is commonly used is if a published US application or Patent was filed before the filing date of the current invention by another (this also applies to WIPO filing dates). This is called a 102(e) and like 102(a) is based on invention date so it can also be sworn behind.
I think you need to clarify the prototype being officially made statement. I cannot speak certainly for EPO or other patent offices, but the general idea is that the item described in the Patent Application has actually been invented. As such, there had better be a prototype of some sort sitting around somewhere. Most all patent laws center around a publication or existance of an item that is known to the public in same.
"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:5, Insightful)
I respect the rights of patent owners, and I'm not sure how you could legally sanction this berhaviour without harming patent holders' legitimate rights, but the practice is just plain sleazy.
Now it may be that they have had suit against Toyota ever since the hybrid came on the market, and this is just a recent expansion of that suit, in which case they are not being weasels...
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:5, Informative)
From their FAQ:
What is the Electric Wheel(TM)?
The Electric Wheel(TM) is a new technology motor (first patented in 1991) that significantly improves and exceeds the net horsepower output of existing electric and fossil fuel motors. Solomon Technologies currently provides three series of motor systems built on this technology; the ST37, the ST58 and the ST74. They have been designed for use in marine environments. The ST58 combines variable torque converters, brushless motors with Neodymium Iron Boron (NeFe B) magnets, and a powerful regenerative feedback function that converts the motor(s) into a generator of electricity to recharge the batteries while under sail, and provide electrical power to other appliances on the boat.
So looks like they are legit (or are a very elaborate front
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe the US (and indeed most countries) need to re-evaluate the law pertaining to patent law, what it was created for, and what it should cover today. Also, copyright law needs looking at - I'm pretty disgusted with the UK version as it stands, I'm sure the US has an equally if not worse one. 25 years or death plus 5 years sounds fair. After then, it doesn't mean no-one owns it, it means everyone owns it, surely?
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:3, Informative)
Patent Length (Score:3, Informative)
Although, the length of utility and plant patent protection (patent term) was previously seventeen years from the date of patent grant, utility and plant patents filed after June 8, 1995 now have a patent term of up to twenty years from the date of filing of the earliest related patent application. Utility and plant patents which were applied for prior to June 8, 1995, and which were or will be in force after June 8, 1995, now have a patent ter
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:2, Informative)
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the _United_States [wikipedia.org]. In general, it's 20 years (17 for patents before 1995, as this one was)
The main reason for making it so long is that people and companies typical
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:5, Informative)
If a product that uses your patent without an agreement in place is on the market for X months and you, the patent holder, do not challenge such use, a license is automatically granted for that product.
If you have reason to believe a product is using your patent, you can file a challenge with the patent office stating so. The company offering the product has to respond saying that they are or are not violating your patent. If they say they are not, the previous "X month" window gets extended to the full term of the patent for that product. If they aren't using your patent, this has no effect. If they are using your patent, and tell the patent office they aren't, you now have the full term of the patent to prove them wrong.
You can only exercise this challenge Y times over the life of the patent. Y will not include any challenge that is upheld, either initially or after the fact.
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:2)
If a product that uses your patent without an agreement in place is on the market for X months and you, the patent holder, do not challenge such use, a license is automatically granted for that product.
So I could get myself a license by producing a product, and making sure it's low enough on the radar that it never blips on the patent holder's screen (for example, sell it to a few "customers" for whom I do the same sort of favor in re
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Limit patent transferability (Score:2)
Re:Limit patent transferability (Score:2)
That's a really crappy "solution," as you've just limited patents even more to the large corporations. There's nothing wrong with a little guy inventing something, patenting it, and licensing it for commercialization. Otherwise, you're saying that to invent anything you have to have the necessary capital to build a factory, and that sucks.
I don't think that's what he meant. I took his suggestion to mean that only the original patent filer could hold the patent. That person or organisation could then lic
Re:Limit patent transferability (Score:3, Insightful)
Mind you, I *am* against the current patent system, I just don't think your suggestion would fly ;)
-naeem
Re:Limit patent transferability (Score:2)
Dumb idea. Patents represent actual property. That would be like the government telling you that you couldn't resell your car.
That's a very poor metaphor. Does your ownership of your car expire? Can you licence your car to thousands of people across the world? Did you invent your car? The two things are really quite different.
Re:"Surfacing, Captain" (Score:2, Insightful)
If a temporary monopoly was not granted, the inventor would be completely buried by large corporations IMMEDIATELY. If a poor man invents a great product, but has no resources to develop and manufacture and sell it, a temporary monopoly allows for him to attempt to gather these resources so that he can benefit from his efforts. Otherwise, as soon as GIANT CORPORATION X gets wind of it, they have the product on the shelves overnight and said invento
Summary is a little misleading (Score:5, Informative)
The article just says that Solomon is taking their complaint to the ITC to block Toyota from importing more vehicles. ITC can't rule guilt or fine Toyota. If Toyota manufactured the vehicles here, it likely would circumvent anything the ITC could do. There has been no admission of guilt by Toyota so the only other place guilt can be determined is in a court of law. Until the case currently in US District Court is ruled on, there is no guilt. Only accusations.
No. In the case of the article it just would mean Toyota couldn't import hybrid vehicles of this design (presuming they don't license the patent and settle the District Court case). They would either have to make them state-side or find a different design. Beleive it or not, there is more then one way to design a hybrid vehicle. This ruling wouldn't have an immediate effect on other manufacturers of hybrid vehicles although it might set a precident for future litigation.
Re:Summary is a little misleading (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, hence the correct usage of the word "probably".
Re:Summary is a little misleading (Score:2)
Re:Summary is a little misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
A: Because this guy came up with it first.
So long as I'm the only person that is punished because the other guy came up with it first (unverified, just like Edison's lightbulb), I guess its OK.
Patents are a necessary evil
I like pithy quotes:
"Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."
-- Jerry Garcia
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-- E
Re:Summary is a little misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever. Jerry is not old, fat, or a hippie stoner. He has been dead 10 years. He is more like a skeleton now.
Jerry was a very kind and intelligent person that could play the fuck out of a guitar. Other things he has said:
Regarding consciousness:
"What is life but being conscious? And good and evil are manifestations of consciousness. If you reject one, you're not getting the whole thing that's there to be had."
There are others,
Is it good news or bad news? (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft Under Fire For Patent Infringement - good news.
Sun Under Fire For Patent Infringement - depends on wind direction and world series basketball results.
Do we love or hate Toyota Prius?
Re:Is it good news or bad news? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Is it good news or bad news? (Score:3, Insightful)
On one hand, we need more alternatives to oil, and anything that hurts that hurts us all in the long run.
On the other hand, if a high profile patent case is brought against hybrid cars, then it'll possibly bring the absurdity of current patent situations into the public light, and I can already hear screaming on the senate floor about the evils of patents.
On the third hand, patents *do* have their uses (recovering research costs and
Limited problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This actually looks like a reasonable patent -- the inventor did come up with a reasonably novel approach to getting decent efficiency out of electric motors under varying load conditions, and published it via the patent system long ago.
The auto companies pay plenty in patent royalties every year, and if they'd negotiated terms before using this (which may well be tracable to their designs) then I doubt they'd have had to pay much. They may not have to pay all that much now, hard to say.
Re:Limited problem (Score:3, Interesting)
This is just submarine patenting. Toyota put out commercials describing the basics of the car. If that's not enough to get you to take a closer look for possible infringment, then you should lose any chance of getting money.
Re:Limited problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I would venture a guess that many companies go patent hunting before creating new products, and if Toyota were to perform such a practice they surely would have noticed this one in their search (you would think). There are several possible reas
Re:Limited problem (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Limited problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Infinit Speed !!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Infinit Speed !!! (Score:2)
Didn't Toyota already research this? (Score:2)
The Solomon company uses their technology primarily for boats and not cars, maybe that is why Toyota thought their system was different enough that it didn't infringe on their patents.
Another example of patents in good use (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, Um, Patents Are Not Holy (Score:2, Insightful)
Electric braking and planetary transmissions have bveen around for about a century-- there's probably 1,000 prior patents and prior art in that genre.
With just a preliminary survey like that, Toyota can have a mighty strong negotiating position wit
Re:Er, Um, Patents Are Not Holy (Score:3, Insightful)
In this situation, unlike some of the past abuser
Re:There are a couple of assumptions there. (Score:2)
Due Diligence (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Due Diligence (Score:2)
I don't think so. Not that I know anything about patent law, but the whole Eolas browser plugin patent would have been voided years ago if this where true. I do think some kind of 'defend it or lose it' rule (a exists with trademarks) whould be a good idea for patents...
This patent doesn't cover Prius' s drive (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that every claim is either a "base claim", that is, that starts a new description, or is a
"subsidiary claim" that depends or extends another claim.
Lesson 2: READ THE BASE CLAIMS TWICE.
The base claims are the patent's "weak spots" - if you can just dodge every base claim, then
the patent doesn't apply to you.
Notice that in this patent every base claim says "electrical" on both power inputs. That's
a major flaw; this patent has no claims that cover the case of only one electrical power
input and one of a totally other kind of power.
Lesson 3: THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT IF NONE OF THE CLAIMS APPLY.
The Prius driveline doesn't use an electrical motor on BOTH inputs, only on one. Hence it does
not infringe.
Next?
Seems semi valid (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm guessing / hoping Toyota and this company will both be reasonable and find a fair way to settle this. Where this isn't a 'completely frivolous' case, where the patent holder is a company setup to make money off it's patents (which it doesn't use), I think they'll at least be reasonable.
30,000+ prior patents on this (Score:2)
Even if 99% of those are false hits, that still leaves about 300+ patents that just might have prior art or patent rights that this alleged patent infringes on.
Doesnt look too good for these noobies.
Re:30,000+ prior patents on this (Score:2)
Eminent domain (Score:2)
Hybrids aren't that big a deal. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are two reasons why they've been attractive. The first is that they're fashionable, especially with the celebrities driving around in them. But even then, the Prius has been more successful than any other hybrid not because it's superior, but simply because the styling is different from most cars. It looks futuristic, it looks like a hybrid. the car is essentially a fashion statement.
The second, less perceptable reason for your average consumer, is that hybrids don't feel like they're equipped with a small gasoline engine. The fuel efficiency all comes from the fact that the engine is small, not that there's some great leap in technology in the car. The distinction is that the electric motor provides additional power preventing the car from feeling too sluggish. In some cases the electric motor can motivate the car on it's own, but that only applies to the Prius and Ford hybrids, the Civic still needs the engine to get it going. It's only under a limited set of circumstances that the engine can fully take over anyway.
Then there's the premium a hybrid commands over a normal car, and the fact that the batteries themselves are extremely expensive, and are rated for, at most, 100,000 miles only under ideal circumstances. Then there's the fact that batteries can be highly polluting, both during manufacturing and disposal.
If you wan't real fuel efficiency buy a car with a 1 liter engine like are available in Europe. The car is going to be extremely sluggish, but it will get you from point A to point B. You can drive it like a normal car and still expect the kind of mileage hybrids struggle to match. If you want to go one up on that, get a small-displacement diesel which get even better mileage. Although, those cars tend to pollute considerably.
As an interim step I think hybrids are perfectly fine. My concern is that hybrids are going to turn into cash cows for automakers and they're going to get fixated on them neglecting development of far superior technologies.
What I predict is that the American automakers will go nuts over hybrids like they did over SUVs. By the time they've saturated the market with them and have to offer massive discounts to get them off their lots the foreign automakers will already be introducing new technologies. Man, I'd like to know what kind of idiots are running those companies.
Hybrids are a pipe dream anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
We are far better off investing in both straight electric and high efficiency diesel technology. Both are easier and cheaper to manufacture and allow for a wider range of fuel sources.
Don't panic (Score:4, Informative)
There have certainly been some interesting innovations that make modern hybrids possible since then, primarily the interesting motor/generator/transmission gadgets, but the fundamentals that are critical to all hybrids go back way further.
Prior art? (Score:3, Interesting)
Toyota might be safe... (Score:3, Informative)
Regenerative braking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or are 100% of all non-steam locomotives too "old tech" for the folks here?
Please note, btw, that ALL "diesel locomotives" are actually 'hybrids", using a diesel engine to generate electricity to run electric motors.
I'd say that prior art takes regenerative braking out of the so-called infringement.
mark "yes, I am into trains...."
Re:good patent? (Score:2, Insightful)
That being said: where do you think R&D money comes from?
Once example: You do realize that developing new medicines costs a crapload of money right? You do realize that companies who develop medicines depend on patents to guarantee that it cannot be copied so they can make more money and make more medicines right? Thankfully, the patents expire and the drugs become generics, bringing costs down.
R&D costs money, plain and simple. One day maybe we will adopt
Re:good patent? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:good patent? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:good patent? (Score:4, Informative)
> Once example: You do realize that developing new medicines costs a crapload of money right?
> You do realize that companies who develop medicines depend on patents to guarantee that it
> cannot be copied so they can make more money and make more medicines right? Thankfully, the
> patents expire and the drugs become generics, bringing costs down.
Pharmaceutical companies do spend a fair amount on R & D. However, it is nowhere near as much as they spend on marketing. The reality is that they are using patents to control the market, not to recoup their R & D investment.
Re:good patent? (Score:3, Insightful)
The vast majority, more than 80%, of the patent generated revenues in the pharm industry does not go to R&D. It goes to marketing, administration and comparatively horridly inefficient production. Take a look at any pharmaceuticals financial reports some time.
You do realize that we'd get five times the current amount of R&D if we simp
Re:The patent (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and yes. The thing in question here is Toyota's Power Split Device [howstuffworks.com], which is a constantly-engaged planetary gear set that acts as a transmission and drives (or is partially driven by) the electric motor/generator. Which appears to be exactly what the patent describes.
Re:The patent (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a little puzzled by the timing of this suit, which has emerged a full five years after Prius models have been available, and I don't think it was particularly secret that they were developing hybrid vehicles before 2000. (I own a 2000 model myself.) Did Solomon forget they had this patent? Wouldn't the doctrine of laches apply here? http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm [lectlaw.com].
Even in 1990 (when the patent was issued) wouldn't a gear assembly like this have been obvious to any knowledgable practitioner of the art?
Re:Toyota infringed? never! (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you work for Ford?
Re:Blah (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Protection for nonfiler (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, the patent holder most likely would have built their product back when they did anyway. The major money i
"iawtp" (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's so true. Every events like this, my own reaction always goes "see, now people must see the insanity and unreasonable arbitraryness of our patent system! . . . oh, who am I fooling."